This is not to say that GNS theory is wrong, but it is not a theory that I believe in. I prefer to take a different approach with my games and my game designs. I really enjoy works like “Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals” by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman available from The MIT Press. Their research into game theory and the biology and architecture of the human brain leads me to think the GNS is a bit too narrow to describe what is happening at a physical and psychological level when a person is playing a game.

This article was written from that perspective. That we as human beings might stray from rules because our brain has become bored with something that normally is fun. Literally our brains are processing something and it is experienced as fun until over time and with repetition that very same event is now boring. It may become fun again with a short break, and most likely will become fun again with a short break, but at that moment our brains are saying “That’s enough. Fun effect off.”

Since that is our physical reality, a good GM has to be ready to take that break from the game and allow a distraction moment take off. First because it is just plain cool when those moments occur naturally. Let them ride out. Second so that the collective set of brains at the table each has a moment to stop playing the game in order to reset the “fun factor” of the game.

I hope that helps you to understand where I am coming from as the author of the article. Sorry that my response isn’t in the terms of Creative Agenda, but since I don’t subscribe to GNS theory I wouldn’t feel comfortable in writing from that perspective.

Drift

Changing from one Creative Agenda to another, or from the lack of shared Creative Agenda to a specific one, during play, typically through changing the System. In observational terms, often marked by openly deciding to ignore or alter the use of a given rule

http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html

It would be interesting to hear your analysis in terms of Creative Agenda.

Secondly, this only happened because we based the rules on the game we all wanted to play. My PC’s play the game and create the story based on these rules, and sometimes rolling that 96% on a simple lie attempt after great exposition is part of creating that great story (“How was I to known that the stupid gate guard has a brother that really IS a necromancer??”).
So I think that Tim Jensen’s point is very well made and that in the right system, Roleplaying is emphasized anyways.

I think we are opening up a 96′ Sterling Reserve Cab and a 2001 Barolo so far this Sunday.

But that is the point exactly – your son and his mates are going to have a different definition of what would be fun than the rules were most likely designed for. A table of thirty-something gamers might not enjoy that kind of play, but I can see how a group of kids would.

To my mind the only purpose of consistent rules in an RPG is to prevent what otherwise occurs in games of pretend: “you have a super sword? Well I have armour that is stronger than your sword…and I can fly”. As long as that is not happening we are ok.

It’s a valid point. I enjoy butt-kicking and glamor as much as the next escapist role-player, but if things always fall your way, then it deflates the game (eventually). Like most things in this subjective hobby, it’s matter of balance: knowing when to fudge, and when to stick to your guns. That comes through best when you have a confident, knowledgeable GM and fellow players.

And yes, a good GM will involve the rest of the group in any significant rule changes. But managing such things as house rules is traditionally the GM’s turf.

A lot is made of social contracts in gaming, both implicit and explicit. An oft-overlooked element of the social contact is the system itself. When a group selects a system, it is declaring, “These are the mechanics by which we will play the game,” and making a joint decision regarding a major element of the social contract.

If the GM significantly tampers with the rules without consultation, or makes frequent exceptions, he’s effectively violating the social contract. Unless, of course, the group already agrees that this is acceptable.

@Tim Jensen – That is a good point, but from my experience rarely has an RPG system been a perfect fit for any group. I’m a big fan of Fudge and that system strongly encourages tweaking and fiddling with the rules (hell, I’d say that it is a requirement of Fudge at times). No matter how much I’ve tweaked the rules with that wonderfully flexible system there is always something that doesn’t quite fit for a particular group or genre. Luckily Fudge also encourages ditching the rules in order to keep the fun. You should find the system that is the best match for your play style, but this hobby is subjective as a fellow gnome-who-might-be-named-Kurt likes to say. That means what you think is a fit might not be what the rest of your group thinks is a fit.

@itliaf – Actually we gnomes influence your thoughts and situations to better fit the articles that we would like to write. This universe revolves around us and our felt hats.

@pseudodragon – Introducing changes or new systems can be difficult. One of my sneakier tactics is the ‘reverse psychology’ approach. I’ll read that new RPG or I’ll be writing out those proposed house rules at the table and wait for someone to ask “Watcha’ doin’?” and reply with “Nothing, just checking out this really awesome new RPG that you wouldn’t want to play.” or “Nothing, just coming up with a completely better approach to combat initiative that you wouldn’t like.”

And yes, that really works. Generic deity help me, it absolutely works with some very smart and intelligent people. I’m sure that someone has used the same cheesy tactic with me and that it worked just as well. We gamers are a silly lot.

For example, if you adopt the popular position that “if you convince me, your character convinces the NPC,” that’s often a fun change. It gives people an incentive to stay in character and to play to the extent of their skill. But… it also means a hesitant or non-persuasive player can’t have the wish fulfillment of playing a cunning conman, that character skill distributions will change (no reason to spend points on social skills if player aptitude is what matters), etc. None of these things are necessarily bad, but they’re often unintended consequences.